http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB126221385046310927-
lMyQjAxMDI5NjMyMTIzMTEzWj.html
http://charlie-hazzard.blogspot.com/2009/07/polar-bears.html
In the WSJ article we've attached, the effort to define a clear picture of the future of the polar bear is described as confused. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - as well as many polar bear biologists - says that global warming is destroying so much of the bears' icy habitat that the species could be nearly wiped out in the next 100 years. The U.S. is pushing to ban global trade in polar bears...Canada says it has "considerable concern" over polar bears' future, but it is unclear how much Arctic ice will be lost and what effect the melts will have on the wildlife that lives there. Then, there is the native Intuit tribal hunter who sees "increasing" numbers of polar bears as he hunts. What the WSJ article highlights is the "warring viewpoints" of the once tight knit community of polar bear experts as global warming focuses international attention on the issue.
In the latest salvo, the United Nations-administered organization that overseas trade in endangered species earlier this month criticized the U.S.'s proposed polar bear trade ban, noting that the proposal hadn't shown the bears to be in danger now or that stopping trade would help them if they were.
As a "service" to our followers, we have attached a "link" to our 7/6/09 post on "Polar Bears" where we, as well as George Will, were shocked to find that the U.S. Department of the Interior had declared polar bears to be a "threatened species because they might be endangered in the foreseeable future," meaning 45 years (if our "link" doesn't get you to the post, just scroll back to it). Polar bears had the distinction of being the first species whose supposed jeopardy had been ascribed to "global warming."
We're going to go with the Canadian Intuit on this one since they live on the ground with the polar bears and would be the first to scream if the bears were lessening in numbers.
If we could borrow again from our 7/6/09 post, "... for Will and many of the rest of us, there is a remembrance that, in 1975, the general consensus of scientists was that we were entering a "New Ice Age" ("Science" magazine, March 1975 reported "...the approach of a full blown 10,000 year ice age."). Will quoted Nigel Lawson as saying that "Over the past 2.5 million years, a period where the planet's climate has fluctuated substantially, remarkably few of the earth's millions of plant and animal species became extinct." We're still waiting for the "New Ice Age".
Again, if we might quote George Will quoting the NY Times ( and organization always ready to support left wing causes and the Boston Red Sox) quoting "scientists" saying the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau" - 11 years of temperature stability has no bearing on long term warming. According to the Times, "... a short term trend (11 years) gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change." To quote Will, "Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence."
If we might borrow from our 12/1/09 post on "Climategate", Richard Lindzen (a meteorologist at MIT) opined that the general support for "warming" was based not so much on the quality of the data, but on the fact that there was a "little ice age" from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus, it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerge from this episode. With the advancement of the modern industrial age, CO2 has added to warming but not to any major extent. And, the "environmental models" that did not predict the "... absence of warming for the past dozen years ..." are now being modified to justify what they missed: they now predict "warming" to resume in 2009, 2013 and 2030 respectively. Perhaps we'll hear a retroactive pronouncement about 2009.
We continue to avidly support the polar bear. What we do not support is the Chicken Little science of global warming and Al Gore. Actually, Chicken Little and Al Gore, there's a combination!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that we get distracted by this issue of whether climate change is man-made or not and as a result end up doing nothing at all. It is "sexy" issue that gets a lot of press, but it has no real solution that individuals can act on. I actually think that Gore and company have done more to hurt the environmental cause than help it and it frustrates me.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a serious problem, because even if you debate the causes, or actuality, of global warming, increased use of fossil fuels (and other pollutants such as BPAs) is detrimental to us on a local level. It is clear that toxicity in the environment has steadily risen over the last few decades which can be directly attributed to (and fixed by) human intervention, but we are stuck on the macro-issue of global warming and ignoring this. We, as individuals, are not really informed enough to make a decision since we do not have access to all of the scientific information. We can, however, make a judgment call that we want to leave our little slice of the world in good shape by decreasing the amount of damage we do to our local environment.
The local environment has a more direct impact on our well-being in the here-and-now. The direct effects of this environmental damage shows up as increased rates of autoimmune diseases, decreased fertility, and issues that are speculated about such as obesity and autism. And the fix for this is so much cheaper and easier than that of global warming. Fuel-efficient cars, innovations in production, and reduction of waste are just a few. Think of what we did when we took lead out of gas! This did cause us to make any major changes in how we went about our daily lives, but it produced significant benefits to us. It just makes sense to live with a lighter footprint, whether you believe the earth is warming or not.
Dr. TR - outstanding thoughts! We should be talking about NOT polluting. And, your analogy about "lead" is excellent. What "we" can do is important. At the government level, there are some positive things we can do: nuclear energy is clean and safe now. Wind energy and natural gas are also useful and cleaner. I don't think we will ever get 193 countries to agree on what time it is, but we can do things individually, locally and nationally that make our environment better. Great comment!
ReplyDeleteCH -
ReplyDeleteI think your point about trying to get 193 countries to agree is excellent! If we cannot agree as Americans what our priorities are, how can we expect to have the same interests as all of these other counties. I think this is where the US could emerge as a leader - if we pick a path and stick to it, others will follow.
TR
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteagree with Dr. Rockett--
ReplyDeleteIn addition I liken environmental policy to ethical policy -- while the government can set general standards, it is ultimately an individual character issues. I don't think increases in government will lead to the innovations we need to make conservation possible.
I thought it was interesting that the Pope talked about environmental issues during his Christmas Day Mass -- it might be more effective to target conservation as a moral/ethical/cultural priority rather than a government mandate.
After our environmental pathology lecture I was shocked how prevalent many known carcinogens such as heavy metals and dyes are within ground water in the US. Just a question -- Does the GDP from these industries offset the health care burden of the surrounding communities?
GMI - Great comments!The answer to your question is "NO"!! What we need are active and effective lawyers, doctors and foundations to go after these issues. Also, the "science" of all this has to separate the real issues (like mesothelioma - a vicious killer) from the issues of mass hysteria (like the "Love Canal").
ReplyDeleteGreat point GMI! By turning this into a discussion of our personal responsibility based on moral priorities we might actually get something done.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, the FDA just ruled that BPAs were a cause of concern. Given that traces of the chemical have been found in 90% (90%!!) of all Americans, we can start here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011504070.html?nav%3Dhcmodule
GMI - is there continued discussion about environmental toxins in med school or is just touched on in a lecture or two?
This would be an interesting subject to take to the nanotechnology center. Someone at Rice came up with a low cost way to filter arsenic out of water by applying nanotechnology.
ReplyDeleteIt is just not economically feasible to filter everything with current technology. The renaissance of cancers over the past century does makes me ponder it all time and time again. Who has time to figure out if everything in their life is safe? Not the FDA. LOL. Wait, that is more sad than funny.
Environmentalists that somehow amass enough political power to force the US to not drill just off the coast of Florida (which China gladly drills) give environmentalists concerned with carcinogens in our water and food a bad reputation. Did anyone catch the environmentalists blocking the construction of solar panels in California desert, practically the best place in California to build them. In all fairness, environmentalists bought the land and donated it to the government, which Senator Dianne Feinstein promised to protect. Badly played. Very badly played. I am an idiot compared to most Senators, but this just seems like an excellent opportunity for compromise.
The continuous mishandling of negotiations among environmentalists, businesses, politicians, and other stakeholders creates a pejorative for any utterance of the words environment, environmentalist, and so forth.
Interesting how this moved from polar bears. Then again, it is generally the same sort of insane situation in which people fail to understand each other or succeed in ignoring each other. At the end of the day, technological innovation is the most powerful way to solve these problems.